Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#471

Post by justapassenger »

parkingrift wrote: post #314

So let me get this straight. Facebook has absolute control to limit the spread of a story or news on their platform. Facebook has absolute control to outright block specific content based on an algorithm they control. Facebook can and will editorialize content posted on their platform. Facebook has absolute control over the content that users see. Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publis…

Hacker news can do (and does on occasions) all of those things as well. It’s called moderation.

Is Hacker News a publisher?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#473

Post by yonaguska »

hotpotamus wrote: post #39
readthenotes1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other things, it shows that his father did know about his shady deals (ukraine, china). Also had videos of various illegal activities that you and I would probably be thrown in jail for if the FBI found them on a laptop of ours

And you think having a relative with shady deals is disqualifying for public office? And what illegal activities was Hunter up to?

The issue is less the shady deals and more the fact that the shady deals were brokered in part by the big guy, Joe, himself as vice president.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#474

Post by goodluckchuck »

somenameforme wrote: post #433
growse wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The word 'platform' doesn't appear in the entire section. The only time the word 'publisher' appears is: (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

And that's the trillion dollar line. The reason for its justification is because as an owner of a digital platform, you can't get sued by Joe for defamation because somebody said something defaming about him on your platform. Publishers can, and do, get sued for defamation because they're responsible for what they publish. Now let's imagine a hypothetical extreme where OnlineSite ends up censoring any posts related t…

The question is when is “information provided by another information content provider?”

Suppose Facebook (corporate) generates content, sells it to an independent company, then leases it back and publishes it?

Suppose Facebook uses millions of user-submitted pictures to train an AI, then publishes the resulting images? Are those “information provided by another information content provider?”

Suppose Facebook copies and pastes user content, but claims to be the author and puts “written by Facebook and representative of the company’s official views.”

Suppose they have samples that say A and B, and they choose to show A and not B?

Suppose they like the gist of A, but it would be more compelling if they edited the image, changed the wording, and cut out other parts?

Suppose they like A, but hires staffers to completely rewrite the story, like Disney redoing Cinderella?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#475

Post by jacquesm »

philipov wrote: post #396
projektfu wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law protects small sites, too. It also makes users responsible for their own words, which is legitimate. Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content. You could "hack" the law by saying it only applies to companies with market cap less than 100bn. This is how some laws have been written in the past to specifically jeopardize p…

How about if instead, we nationalize Facebook. The public square should not be owned by a private corporation. If that's not possible, yes: Facebook should be destroyed.

Yes, but which country gets to nationalize it then? I'm assuming you mean the USA, but where does that leave the users of all of the other countries that also use Facebook?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#476

Post by naasking »

andy_ppp wrote: post #13
spangry wrote: post #12

This is the great fear of many come to pass - censorship by algorithm. Facebook didn't outright ban sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop stories like Twitter did, they instead tweaked their algorithm to prevent the story from spreading. We found out about it this time because Zuckerberg owned up to it, but what about next time? For all we know, Facebook, Google and Twitter are doing this right now on a range of other s…

We do know they are doing this otherwise hate speech, spam and disinformation would be most of their platforms.

Spam and disinformation are fake account/bot problems. Totally separate issue that can be solved by tying accounts to real people, without necessarily exposing their identity publicly.

As for hate speech, that's not only somewhat subjective, but you can't solve that by banning people. Every instance of people turning away from bigotry was the result of conversation and engagement, like the black Panthers partnering with the KKK to fight a common cause, or the admirable Daryl Davis.

Basically, the outcomes you describe are only inevitable if we make the exact same choices we've already made. Well duh. What's the definition of insanity again?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#477

Post by hef19898 »

arinlen wrote: post #394
hnav wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s an academic, I don’t think he “supports” like it’s a ball team. Whenever you try to find nuance in such a situation, you’re a POS to those with predetermined views.

> He’s an academic,I don’t think he “supports” like it’s a ball team. Noam Chomsky is "an academic" in the field of linguistics and cognitive science. Outside of academia he's an activist, and one which is very vocal in his anti-US sentiment. This is not a negative trait. Free and open societies need contrarians and antagonists, as democratic regimes do not resist echo chambers. However, let's not pretend that just b…

As with all academics that gain fame, and then step outside their field of expertise, he started to look a tad stupid. Peterson is another example, as are those German "intelectuals" who also called for a Ukrainian surrender of sorts.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#478

Post by hef19898 »

starkd wrote: post #373
spangry wrote: post #12

This is the great fear of many come to pass - censorship by algorithm. Facebook didn't outright ban sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop stories like Twitter did, they instead tweaked their algorithm to prevent the story from spreading. We found out about it this time because Zuckerberg owned up to it, but what about next time? For all we know, Facebook, Google and Twitter are doing this right now on a range of other s…

I remember the laptop story being flagged right here on HN the day it came out. Before it was flagged, many insisted it was a BS story. Links to the Tucker Carlson interview of Tony Bobulinski's connection to the Biden family were also flagged. There's a serious problem with group-think in online communities.

And since those stories all utter BS, I'm ok with the flagging.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#479

Post by criley2 »

atestu wrote: post #472
criley2 wrote: post #393

Quoted post unavailable.

Except the story wasn’t “fake news”. It was real.

With all due respect, what conservative media claimed was on the laptop was falsified and fake news. The existence of a candidate for President's son having a laptop with some lewd photos on it was real. The lie that it contained evidence of corruption relevant to Joe Biden and the election was a salacious lie, done as a trick to try and win an election. In my opinion, it represents one of the most perfect examples of fake news and how it works in our entire lifetimes. This is how disinformation works, a little truth allows you to slide in a lot of lie.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#480

Post by mypastself »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #451
mypastself wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the FBI gives you specific guidelines on what to be vary of, shortly before a news story that fits all their criteria drops, you listen. I doubt it was a taken as a friendly heads-up by Facebook, given the numerous accusations, threats of additional regulations, and congressional grillings in the years prior. When the then-head of the FBI released a particular public statement in 2016, many believed it swayed th…

> shortly before a news story that fits all their criteria drops Why do you think it was "shortly"? Zuckerberg gave no details on the timing of the FBI's warning.

I think “shortly before” is a fair interpretation of the following quote:

> …'hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that'."

> He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".

The timing (“there’s about to be… [a] dump”) sounds like an important part of the identified pattern, or else it wouldn’t have been mentioned in the quote.

Post reply on HN